The Barbed Wire - March 28, 2014

Senate Budget Subcommittee Considers PILT Funding

On Thursday, Senate Budget Subcommittee Number 4 discussed the monies owed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to 36 counties in the form of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). The DFW has not made PILT payments to counties in more than a decade. 

Senator Lois Wolk (D-Yolo County) attended the hearing and requested that the Subcommittee Members fund the past due monies owed, and resume ongoing annual payments to the counties in the 2014-15 State Budget. 

Senator Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber), who is a Member of the Subcommittee, also spoke in support of PILT funding. RCRC and CSAC testified as well. Senators Wolk and Nielsen are the authors of SB 1410, which would appropriate $19 million for payments to counties for outstanding obligations, as well as appropriate $2 million annually, beginning in 2014-15, to continue annual payments.

The Chair, Senator Jim Beall (D-Santa Clara County), asked DFW Director Chuck Bonham to pull together the numbers of the amount owed to counties for a May 2014 hearing on PILT.   The Chair also asked the Department of Finance to work with DFW to explore other potential funding sources for ongoing annual payments, such as lease payments. The June 2013 DFW breakdown of monies owed to counties can be accessed here.

For additional information, please contact RCRC Legislative Advocate Kathy Mannion at 916.447.4806 or kmannion@rcrcnet.org.

Assembly Budget Subcommittee Considers Williamson Act Subvention Funding

On Tuesday, Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 4 discussed the issue of Williamson Act subventions. Assembly Member Susan Eggman, Chair of the Assembly Agriculture Committee, testified in support of inclusion of subvention monies in the 2014-15 State Budget, and referenced the bi-partisan legislative letter signed by 32 Members of the Senate and Assembly urging the same. 

Along with RCRC, several members of the Williamson Act Coalition also testified in support of subvention funding, including California Farm Bureau Federation President Paul Wenger. Other organizations lending supportive testimony included the Nature Conservancy, California Cattlemen’s Association, Western United Dairymen, the California Building Industry Association, and CSAC.

The item was held open, and will be brought up again at a later date, possibly as a vote only item. There was no indication as to the level of funding the Members of the subcommittee were considering. Members of the Williamson Act Coalition are working to secure a similar hearing in the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee Number 4.

For additional information, please contact RCRC Legislative Advocate Kathy Mannion at 916.447.4806 or kmannion@rcrcnet.org.

Budget Subcommittees Hear Cap-and-Trade Issue

In the past 2 weeks, both the Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittees that handle natural resource issues have heard testimony on how the revenues from the cap-and-trade auctions should be allocated. The Department of Finance (DOF) and Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) presented on Governor Brown’s proposal for the revenues, as well as comments being made from affected State Agency officials, including Mary Nichols from the California Air Resources Board (ARB), and Ken Pimlott from the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 

As reported in RCRC’s summary of the Governor’s Proposed Budget, $50 million in cap-and-trade revenues was slated to go to CAL FIRE to fund fire prevention and urban forestry projects. The Budget Subcommittee process is intended to flesh out details of how that funding is to be allocated, and whether or not it will flow to CAL FIRE as proposed by the Governor.

RCRC supports the idea of cap-and-trade funding flowing to forestry and fire prevention projects. Forest fires contribute greenhouse gases, particulate matter, and reduce the amount of carbon sequestration available through the mass destruction of vegetation. Therefore, it is practical to spend some of the revenues generated through the cap-and-trade program to attempt to reduce the risk of fires.

However, it was clear from the tone of some of the comments of committee members, and certainly some of the members of the public who testified, that the proposal may face some stiff opposition. One organization proposed a modification to the plan for the revenue-stream, suggesting that existing SRA Fee revenue could be used to fund local fire prevention grants, and that part of the cap-and-trade revenue slated for CAL FIRE could instead be used to purchase conservation easements. It should be noted that SRA Fee revenues can already, under current law, be spent on local fire prevention grants, although there has not been an appropriation for these grants to-date. Given the Administration’s previously stated reluctance to fund SRA grants, the total amount that could be spent on fire prevention projects could be reduced, allocating some of that revenue to easements instead.

The allocation of the cap-and-trade revenue was left open by the Budget Subcommittees, and will likely be revisited several more times before the completion of the Budget process. RCRC will continue to pursue those items that members consider the best use of the cap-and-trade funds, including fire prevention, rural carve-outs for transportation, funding Sierra Nevada Conservancy and other forest-health projects and programs, and funding the Williamson Act subventions. RCRC’s letter on cap-and-trade revenues can be accessed here.

For additional information, please contact RCRC Legislative Advocate Cyndi Hillery at 916.447.4806 or chillery@rcrcnet.org.

Signatures Submitted for Ballot Measure to Alter MICRA

This week, Consumer Watchdog, an offshoot of the Consumer Attorneys of California, submitted signatures in an attempt to get an anti-MICRA proposition on the November ballot. If news reports are accurate, the measure will likely qualify. Final certification is expected mid-May.

The measure has significant implications for local governments concerned about the cost of health care and access to doctors, community clinics and hospitals. The main provision of the lawyers’ ballot measure will quadruple MICRA’s non-economic damages cap from $250,000 to nearly $1.1 million. 

The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) was signed into law by former and current Governor Jerry Brown in 1975 in an effort to curtail runaway non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Medical malpractice insurance was becoming prohibitively expensive and difficult to obtain in California, especially for certain specialties such as obstetrics. This in turn was driving physicians in numerous specialties out of California, making access to those services difficult, if not completely unavailable in many parts of the state—especially rural areas.

MICRA caps any non-economic damages award at $250,000. There remains no limit on awards for actual damages, including costs of ongoing care, loss of income, or punitive damages under MICRA.

According to California’s independent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the proposition would increase state and local government health care costs by “hundreds of millions of dollars annually.” The LAO additionally comments that “even a small percentage change in health care costs could have a significant effect on government health care spending.” This is relevant to counties in that these costs would need to be passed along to employees, borne by the county General Fund, or benefits would have to be reduced to as the result of a change to the cap. The LAO report can be accessed here.

Perhaps the more threatening outcome of altering MICRA is one that will be felt much more keenly in rural areas. Increasing costs to local providers, community clinics, and local hospitals could force them to reduce services or cease providing services altogether. In rural areas, limited access to healthcare – especially specialty services – is already a serious problem, and a change to MICRA would exacerbate this situation dramatically. 

In addition to the ballot measure, there was an effort by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg in SB 1429 to find a legislative compromise on the issue of MICRA, before the ballot initiative was finalized. At this point, however, it appears that he is no longer pursuing that effort.

A broad coalition of doctors, hospitals, community health clinics, local governments, nurses, business, labor and others, including RCRC, have long supported the existing MICRA law as a protector of access to care. 

For additional information, please contact RCRC Legislative Advocate Cyndi Hillery at 916.447.4806 or chillery@rcrcnet.org.

California Supreme Court Denies Appeal of the Live Oak Medical Marijuana Decision

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court denied review of the Live Oak medical marijuana case regarding an appellate court decision that upheld the authority of local government’s ability to completely ban cultivating medical marijuana.  In December 2011, the City of Live Oak (Sutter County) adopted an ordinance that prohibited the cultivation of marijuana for any purpose within the city’s jurisdiction.  James Maral, on behalf of himself, and as a trustee of the Live Oak Patients, Caregivers and Supporters Association, along with other individuals, sued the City of Live Oak on the grounds that the city’s ordinance violated the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA).  

While the California Supreme Court issued no explanation for the denial, the lower appellate court cited the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in the Riverside vs. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, which found that neither the CUA or the MMP created a broad right to access medical marijuana, and that the CUA only provides limited immunity from criminal prosecution.  In its review of the Riverside case, the appellate court found that the same reasoning applies to the cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana, and that neither law preempts a local government’s ability to regulate or ban medical marijuana cultivation.

The Live Oak decision comes on the heels of the Browne vs. Tehama case, where both the trial and appellate courts found that the state medical marijuana law does not preempt county zoning, and that the county’s marijuana ordinance was not pre-empted by any state law, nor does it violate or conflict with any state law.  Unless the State Supreme court receives petition from a case originating in a different appellate body, the Live Oak, Tehama, and Riverside court cases settle the long-standing debate over the authority of local municipalities to regulate and ban medical marijuana cultivation and distribution.

For additional information, please contact RCRC Senior Legislative Advocate Paul A. Smith at 916.447.4806 or psmith@rcrcnet.org.

Integrated Regional Water Management Strategic Plan in Development

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) is currently developing a draft Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Strategic Plan for the future of IRWM based on input received from two rounds of public workshops. 

The report for the second round of IRWM workshops conducted during October and November 2013 can be accessed here. The draft strategic plan is expected to be released in summer 2014. Additional details on the strategic plan can be accessed here.

For additional information, please contact RCRC Legislative Advocate Kathy Mannion at 916.447.4806 or kmannion@rcrcnet.org.

Public Policy Institute of California Releases Statewide Survey

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released their latest statewide survey this week. Among the topics contained in the survey included water, and according to the PPIC, a record high share of Californians say the supply of water is a bit problem in their part of the state, and nearly all residents say they have reduced their water use in response to the drought. 

Among the findings is that Californians today are more likely than they were a year ago to favor an $11.1 billion bond for state water projects – 60 percent of adults and 50 percent of likely voters say they would vote yes.  Last March, 44 percent of adults and 42 percent of likely voters said they would vote yes.  Today, when those who oppose the bond are asked how they would vote if the amount were lower, support rises (69 percent of adults, 59 percent of likely voters).  A slim majority of adults (52 percent) and 44 percent of likely voters say it is very important that voters pass the bond.

The Legislature is currently considering a number of bills to replace the $11 billion water bond currently on the November 2014 ballot.  The bond will remain on the ballot unless the Legislature acts to remove or modify it by the June 26, 2014 deadline.

The complete survey can be viewed on the PPIC website, accessed here.  Contact survey@ppic.org with any questions about the survey.

President Obama Signs Bill to Reduce Flood Insurance Premiums

On March 4, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 3370, a bill to reduce flood insurance premium rates mandated by the Biggert-Waters Act enacted two years ago. On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Senate approved the House version of H.R. 3370, and on March 21, 2014, the President signed the bill that will roll back the recent rate increases, and prohibit increases on “grandfathered” policies issued for homes constructed before flood maps were adopted. 

In addition, H.R. 3370 will refund policy holders who have paid increased rates after July 6, 2012, reinstate the 50 percent substantial improvement threshold, and provide exclusions for detached structures.

This bill also lowers the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) authority to raise rates to 18 percent, and authorizes assessment of $25 per year on primary residents, and $250 per year on non-residential and non-primary residences to make up for projected revenue loss. H.R. 3370 requires FEMA to conduct an affordability study to include businesses and low-income households. 

For additional information, please contact RCRC Regulatory Affairs Advocate Mary Pitto at 916.447.4806 or mpitto@rcrcnet.org.

U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Release Draft Waters of the U.S. Rule

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have released a joint draft rule that would expand the types of water bodies under their jurisdiction. Currently, the agencies’ jurisdiction is restricted to “navigable waters of the U.S.” The rule would expand that jurisdiction to include wetlands, ditches, tributaries, and other water bodies if they meet certain seasonal and geographical standards, even if they have no physical nexus to federal navigable waters. 

The rule is a response to the controversy surrounding a proposed 2011 guidance document advising agency field staff on how to determine jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Many interested stakeholders, including RCRC, saw the guidance as a de facto rule that would have expanded the federal definition of “waters of the U.S.” without going through a proper public rulemaking process. The guidance was withdrawn, with the agencies now seeking an official rule to expand their authority. The proposed rule will be open for public comment for 90 days following publication in the Federal Register.

The proposed rule and all related documents can be viewed on the EPA website, accessed here.

For additional information, please contact RCRC Regulatory Affairs Advocate Staci Heaton at 916.447.4806 or sheaton@rcrcnet.org.

Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Surface Transportation Reauthorization

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing regarding the reauthorization of the surface transportation bill. The hearing focused on state and local perspectives on transportation priorities and funding. The consensus of the hearing was that current flexibility and streamlining measures from the previous surface transportation authorization bill, MAP-21, are useful, but more work needs to be done in those areas. 

During the hearing, Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) highlighted the bipartisan efforts in MAP-21 to emphasize more local planning for projects such as the Transportation Alternatives Program, known as the Active Transportation Program in California, a program that promotes trails and non-motorized vehicles. Chairwoman Boxer also said that she is working to make funding sources usually reserved for large-scale projects, such as Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act funding, more available to small and rural areas in the next reauthorization bill. Chairwoman Boxer plans to release a Senate reauthorization bill in April. 

RCRC has advocated that as part of a reauthorization effort, the on-system bridge program should be re-instated and a proper set-aside of funding for high-risk rural roads also be included.

For additional information, please contact RCRC Senior Legislative Advocate Paul A. Smith at 916.447.4806 or psmith@rcrcnet.org.

Bill Aimed at Amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 Passes House

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 1459, Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act, on a 222-201 vote.  Most notably, the bill would prohibit the President from making more than one national monument declaration in a State during any presidential four-year term of office without an express Act of Congress, or such a declaration from including private property without the informed written consent of the affected private property owner. 

The bill would also require such a declaration to be considered a major federal action under NEPA if it affects more than 5,000 acres.  The bill now moves to the Senate where its future is far less clear than its path from the House. 

For additional information, please contact RCRC Legislative Advocate Cyndi Hillery at 916.447.4806 or chillery@rcrcnet.org.

EVENTS/NOTICES

Rural Mental Health and Substance Abuse Toolkit Launched

Last week, the Rural Assistance Center (RAC) launched the Rural Mental Health and Substance Abuse Toolkit (Toolkit). The Toolkit was created to assist rural communities with the development and implementation of programs which seek to improve community mental health needs. The RAC provides information and services related to rural health and human services within the United States. 

The Toolkit was developed in conjunction with the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) Walsh Center for Rural Health Analysis, and the University of Minnesota Rural Health Research Center. The Toolkit can be accessed here.

Air Resources Board Sets Comment Deadline for AB 32 Scoping Plan Update

The California Air Resources Control Board (ARB) has set an April 28, 2014 deadline for public comment on the draft Proposed First AB 32 Scoping Plan Update. The Scoping Plan outlines the State’s regulatory strategies and policy goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The Scoping Plan was first adopted in 2008, and must be updated every five years. 

The update includes regulations and strategies in nine key economic sectors, including natural and working lands (forestry), agriculture, waste management, water, transportation, energy, green buildings, short-lived climate pollutants, and cap and trade regulation. An environmental analysis has also been released, with public comments also due April 28, 2014. ARB has set May 22, 2014 as the hearing date for adoption by the Board.

The draft update, environmental analysis, and other related documents can be viewed on the ARB website, accessed here.

For additional information, please contact RCRC Regulatory Affairs Advocate Staci Heaton at 916.447.4806 or sheaton@rcrcnet.org.

Council on Environmental Quality and Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Release Handbook on NEPA and CEQA

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a new handbook titled, “NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State Environmental Reviews.” This handbook provides advice to Federal and California State Agencies, applicants, project sponsors, and consultants on how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review process. 

The handbook can be accessed here.

STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

RCRC members are encouraged to share letters addressed to state and federal representatives and regulatory bodies with RCRC’s Government Affairs staff.

AB 2049 (Dahle): Drinking Water: Point of Entry and Point of Use Treatment Systems.  AB 2049 would expand the authorization from 200 connections to 500 connections for small public water systems to use point of use and point of entry treatment in lieu of centralized water treatments.  Status: Passed out of the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxics Materials Committee.  RCRC Position: Support

AB 2241 (Eggman): Local Government: Agricultural Land.  AB 2241 would change the rescission fee charged by a county when land under Williamson Act contract or land designated as a farmland security zone enters into a solar-use easement to 10 percent of the fair market value of the property and  allows for counties that choose to utilize this approach to retain half of the rescission fee.  Status: Passed out of the Assembly Agriculture Committee.  RCRC Position: Support

AB 1331 (Rendon): Clean, Safe and Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2014.  AB 1331 would replace the $11.14 billion water bond that is currently on the November 2014 ballot with a new $8.0 billion general obligation water bond.  Status: Passed out of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee as amended.  RCRC Position: Pending

SB 1278 (Leno): Animal Control Officers/Training Standards:  SB 1278 would require animal control officers to complete a course in the exercise of powers of arrest/serving warrants as well as require continuing education requirements.  Status: SB 1278 gained passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.  Position: Concerns